Tag Archives: Honolulu rail project

Thinking about the billionaire’s plans for news, labor and journalism, and did you notice Honolulu Weekly?

22 Replies

I started getting emails Wednesday morning following eBay chairman Pierre Omidyar’s announcement of the planned launch of “a Honolulu-based local news service that will produce original, in-depth reporting and analysis of local issues in Hawaii.”

Plans which, they way, will create a profitable and sustainable enterprise.

All I could think of was, “Good luck!”

Seriously, though, it’s hard to know just what to think about it.

I don’t know Omidyar, have no idea how he perceives Hawaii politics, and, so far, nothing has been disclosed about the business plan for the enterprise that would allow it to climb the cliffs of profitability and sustainability.

Omidyar could afford to run a substantial news room with the small change from his billionaire’s income, but this isn’t charity, it’s a business being described as a prototype of something new in journalism.

The web form set up to accept resumes from those interested in hiring on with the project asks just a few direct questions.

In 100 words or less, when did you first realize that the Web was going to change journalism forever?

In 100 words or less, what advice would you give the news industry?

Then applicants are asked for the best headline and best lead “you’ve ever written”.

Whew.

Omidyar is being advised by retired McClatchy veep Howard Weaver, who has been doing a lot of high profile blogging and other writing since retiring at the end of 2008.

Weaver’s musings on the future of journalism have not been without controversy.

Clearly there’s a lot of talent involved in the planning and there’s no shortage of experienced journalists looking for work.

Maybe we’ll be at ground zero of a significant turn in online journalism. I’m looking forward to watching this one develop.

For another journalism model, check out this recent column from Online Journalism Review describing labor’s role in backing several different projects.

It caught my eye because I had recently speculated about the potential for labor taking a more active role backing investigative journalism here in Hawaii.

At that time, I wrote:

It seems to me that unions should be at the front end of the new journalism movement. If a major union like the HGEA mustered its resources, it could easily put together a staff of experienced reporters and convert its inward-looking newspaper and web site into widely read news sources covering labor issues. Unions could even pool resources to create a labor-oriented newspaper with in-depth reporting.

I don’t want to say that the unions deserve the bad press they get, but it’s certainly true that they aren’t doing themselves or their members any favors with the current policy of tight lips.

It’s happening elsewhere, why not Hawaii?

Then, from the “with friends like that” file, did you notice the “editor’s note” in the current issue of Honolulu Weekly, introducing and essentially undermining the cover story?

The cover story is by Curt Sanburn, himself a former Weekly editor, who is able to gently explain how out of step Honolulu’s planned rail project is from the urban transit mainstream and the latest transit technology, represented by at least 20 mainland cities that have built new rail systems in the past two decades.

But before readers get to Sanburn’s story, they hit editor Ragnar Carlson’s roadblock which warns that, in Carlson’s view, the rail story just isn’t up to his reporting standards.

But why in the world would the Weekly’s editor go out of his way to undercut the issue’s lead story? If it were my story, I would be furious.

Along the way, Carlson says he wants a positive spin to stories, saying they “should be for something” and not just criticize. That’s an odd, middle of the road stance for a publication that postures as an alternative weekly. I’m more used to hearing that from the more conservative mainstream.

Hard hitting social and political criticism, often lacking that benign positive perspective, has long found a home in weeklies. Heck, it’s been the backbone of the alternative weekly movement. But perhaps no longer in HW, it seems.

As a Weekly reader, and a former contributor, I can’t help being disappointed.

Now, getting back to Sanburn’s story. He was able to get Toru Hamayasu, Honolulu’s chief transit planner, to acknowledge that the Hannemann administration’s rail plan is pretty much unchanged from the plan Hamayasu worked on as a young engineer in the 1970s during one of Mayor Frank Fasi’s administrations.

At that time, light rail technology was yet to be developed and heavy automated trains on elevated concrete platforms were really “state of the art” in transit planning, both technically and philosophically.

That is no longer the case, as technological developments and concepts of urban transportation have leapfrogged past the world of heavy rail. But, for reasons that remain murky, Hamayasu and the city are essentially clinging to their original Fasi-era plan. It’s not at all clear whether they are personally invested in their previous work and don’t want to let it go, or find it easier to incorporate the plans developed decades ago, or are just riding the momentum of those prior plans. For whatever reason, Mayor Hannemann’s administration is determined to plunge ahead into the past.

Will rushed rail contract scuttle federal funds for transit?

22 Replies

All aboard the Superferry Express!

While most news media focused on Honolulu Mayor Hannemann’s announcement of a labor agreement that will prevent strikes during the construction phase of Honolulu’s proposed rail system, Star-Bulletin reporter Gary Kubota jumped on the more important news of the signing of the first phase construction contract.

Signing the contract was a calculated political move by Mayor Hannemann to forestall any legislative raid on the excise tax revenues held in the city’s special transit fund, according to Kubota’s story.

But the rail EIS is still undergoing federal review, and by signing the contract before a final Environmental Impact Statement has been approved and a so-called “Record of Decision” received, the rail project could become ineligible for otherwise available federal funding.

Although the Star-Bulletin story does not mention the federal funding issue directly, it does warn that Hannemann’s wild rush ahead does risk a Superferry-like outcome.

But Hannemann is putting the rail on a fast track, even though the environmental impact statement for the project still has not received state and federal approval.

Hannemann said he is hoping to break ground for construction in January, and he has not received any indication there is a problem with the city’s environmental impact statement. He said he would emphasize one point to those reviewing the document: “People want this project and they want it now.”

State Sen. Colleen Hanabusa said state and federal officials review the environmental impact statement based on law and whether it provides enough information to make a decision and not on politics.

“It’s not wise to belittle a process that’s very much a part of our law,” she said.

Hanabusa said whether one supports or opposes rail, people do not want to be in the same situation as the Hawaii Superferry, a project halted due to the lack of an adequate environmental impact statement.

What is that?

“People want this project and they want it now.”

Was there an “or else!” threat implied there? I’m not at all clear what the mayor thinks he was saying.

Time to look for some additional clarification of the legal implications on the possibility of federal funding of proceeding before a Record of Decision has been received.

By the way, I spent some time looking for more info on the bids for this contract and didn’t see them in the city’s system.

[text]

Odds and ends on a Wednesday morning–HGEA negotiations, food notes from Louisiana & Paris, Tinfish Press #19, a rail question, and UH bureaucracy

1 Reply

First, from the incoming mail, a reader comments on the HGEA negotiations:

Yesterday’s article seemed like a puff piece fed by Lingle’s office blamming the Mayors for holding up a contract with HGEA. Absent from the reporting were such details as how long the Mayors have had to review the details of the proposed contract and what role, if any, the Mayors played in settlement discussions. While all of us want a settlement, it struck me as a typical Lingle media piece. Wouldn’t prudence dictate that the Mayors actually review what they are agreeing to first? This rings particulary true since the county mayors may have been simply cut out of the process by the adminstration and then given a take it or leave it kind of deal.

This note from Bob Jones:

love Hawaii, but oh the joys of the cheaper mainland. just returned from Louisiana where I was paying $2.14 a gallon for gasoline and the average price of a restaurant dinner with endless shrimp, crab, alligator and sweet potato fries was $10.

Still on the food theme, this note is from a friend now in Paris on an emergency trip:

Food, btw, is amazing here. I have never been fond of French food but I now know that’s because I never actually had any. Such amazing cheese and truly exceptional bottles of wine at every corner store for a (converted) $3. I bought a (converted) $13 bottle of wine for comparison purposes and there was little discernible difference in quality. (I’d heard this was the case but had to test for myself!)

Street markets have incredible arrays of fruit, meat, olives, and prepared foods. Hard for me to figure out price comparisons with both kilo and euro conversion to calculate, but since it’s clearly cheaper than eating at restaurants, I’ve not allowed myself to become overly concerned with those details.

We did eat at a lovely cafe the first night I was here as a celebration of sorts. Prices there were comparable to mid priced Honolulu fare but the food quality was over the top. These folks really know how to enjoy the moment! And they make those moments last. . .dinner hour begins at 8-9 p.m. and extends to 2 a.m. On cafe night we watched elderly couples arrive for dinner at midnight as we were finishing our meal. Quite a cultural phenomenon for me. . .

From Susan Schultz at Tinfish Press:

I am writing to announce publication of our 19th issue of the annual journal, which is beautifully designed, covered by hand-made stuffs, and full of wonderful work. Please support our efforts to publish experimental poetry from the Pacific.

We are charging $12. To order, go to Tinfishpress.com, click on “purchase,” go to the bottom of the 2checkout page and order that way) because we no longer get our postage from UH. You can also order by mail at 47-728 Hui Kelu Street #9, Kane`ohe, HI 96744, the home office.

For more, please read the Editor’s Blog, which includes photographs of our making the covers by hand, and of very cute children (if I may say so myself!).

Here’s a sound bite from the ongoing rail debate:

No rail project like the Vancouver SkyTrain elevated hot third rail system, the one Mayor Hannemann’s administration has used as a model, has been built in any other major Canadian or US city in the 23 years since the SkyTrain was built in 1986.

Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, San Francisco, LA, San Diego, Denver, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, etc. all chose a more flexible technology.

If that SkyTrain is so great, why didn’t any of those other US and Canadian cities build a similar system??

I know the city has canned answers. But I don’t think they’ve got any good answers.

And, from Manoa, something for the “bureaucracy” file:

Since the 1990s, this university has seen an explosion in both the number of administrators and the salaries they receive. In 1994, there were 20,041 students at UHM, in 2008, 20,169, a percent increase of .6. In 1994 there were 2,008 faculty and in ’08, 1,984, or a decease of .1%. In 1994 the UH system and UHM administration had 62 positions, in 2008, it had 234 for an increase of 277%.

Those are the numbers. Here’s a story of those numbers in action:

According to a story making the rounds, David Ross, the Chair of the Manoa Faculty Senate Executive Committee, invited President Greenwood to attend the Senate’s convening of the Faculty Congress at the end of October. He received a reply saying that proper protocol requires that he ask the Chancellor to invite the President on his behalf–and that the President will reply to him through the Chancellor.

I certainly hope that he asserted the rights of the faculty and extended the invitation directly, rather than being shunted off through “channels”.

Don’t miss Sunday’s New York Times story by Julie Creswell detailing the collapse of the Simmons Bedding Company, brought down by a series of investors who bought the company, buried it in debt, extracted huge profits without concern for the ongoing business, and then jumped ship.

When crooks do it, it’s often referred to as a “bust out”. In the case of hundreds of large companies, it’s called “leveraged buyout”, I guess.

I wonder what this kind of digging would show about Hawaii’s hotels. How much of current financial pain in the visitor industry is the result of similar leveraging of our island assets? I would guess it is substantial, but it would be a big project to track down the data.

And did you catch NPR’s story last week about Venezuela’s system of musical training for kids? Amazing.

Equally amazing was that there was no mention of Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez, a popular target of media demonization.

It seems that we’ve got a thing or two to learn from Chavez and Venezuela, if this musical program is any indication.

Here’s another indication that big money will be flowing into federal elections.

From the First Amendment Coalition:

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) decided with a 4-1 vote that a consulting firm, Black Rock Group, can act as a vendor for individuals who want to run political advertisements without violating campaign finance law. The FEC approved the advisory opinion allowing the political consulting firm to provide guidance to clients, each acting as their own liability companies (LLCs), without being regulated as a “political committee.”

Thursday…A friendly exchange about Honolulu’s rail plan

6 Replies

I received an email from a friend yesterday on the rail issue. He wrote:

just for your edification:

the city rejected at-grade light rail because (a) it would have to run on existing roadbed and compete with other transportation (b) it would require short trains and defeat the idea of large-carrying-capacity transit from the west end to the city (c) safety concerns in mixing high-speed rail with other traffic and (d) the need to move this high-speed rail out of other traffic in the city core so it always moves on schedule.

all these reasons seem to me to make great sense.

we’re not building a city streetcar.

I responded, friend to friend.

The problem is that rail technology and solutions have changed dramatically since the all-elevated plan was developed in the late 1980s.

At that time, the Vancouver system was considered “state of the art”.

That is no longer the case.

In fact, the vast majority of systems in the US as well as internationally in the past 10-15 years have been so-called “light rail” systems that can operate either at grade or elevated, depending on the circumstances.

The city has taken advantage of this in one sense–its public presentations often feature photos or video of light rail systems in Denver, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, and elsewhere on the mainland. These are all systems using the more flexible, light rail technology being backed by AIA, and not the technology chosen so far by the city.

The studies I’ve seen so far show only a modest difference in carrying capacity. And once the rail gets into town, with stations much closer together, the train can’t get up to speed anyway and there would be only modest differences the time between stations. That’s especially the case if you figure in the time taken for passengers to reach the elevated train platforms vs. the simplicity of just stepping off the curb into the train.

The city people point to the bus rapid transit approach, which would have run transit down the center lanes with stations on a large median, requiring closing several lanes to traffic. The current approach taken elsewhere, where at-grade is used, is to run in the outer lanes already used by city buses, with “stations” being merely wider sidewalk areas.

The modestly longer commute times, measured in minutes, are offset by the user friendliness of at grade trains in the city, and the substantial cost savings of building at grade, along with extreme reduction in visual pollution in sensitive areas such as along the waterfront, through to Waikiki, etc.

Procedurally, the issue I see is that the city was supposed to study alternatives, including light rail. That was the commitment when it wrote the scope of the promised EIS. Issues such as those you raised were supposed to have been considered, with each alternative assessed.

The city didn’t do that, although it set out on the EIS process publicly proclaiming that it would.

That leaves me concluding that the city didn’t like the answers it was likely to find and, instead, avoided consideration of those alternatives.

There are a lot of pro-rail folks out there who want a Portland or Denver type of system rather than the huge overhead system in Vancouver that Honolulu has modeled after. It’s hard to understand why the city doesn’t want to at least give this alternative a very close look, especially given the savings involved.

AIA has a short video I would recommend.

They also have an informative web site on the flexible light rail option.

I would urge you to check these out before so easily dismissing the issues.